THE US ARMY CAN'T BE SERIOUS! They want to be able to transport 9 Soldiers with an internally carried vehicle (inside a CH-47)...want it light enough to be sling loaded by a UH-60....and they've essentially said screw land mines because we're going to use off road mobility to be where the mines ain't!

This tells me everything I need to know.

The US Army is in a tailspin over the pivot to the Pacific and they see themselves in a real deal fight for relevancy.

Its really unfortunate for not only the Army but the nation. The US needs a credible Army to fight wars. Not another expeditionary force.

The Mungo is a POS and a rolling death trap. Far to small wheels therefore off road performance laughable.

According to size and weight I could imagine an unarmored Wiesel 3 with roll cage. Here some design studies:http://www.vw-bulli.de/uploads/pics/panzer_1.JPGhttp://www.vw-bulli.de/uploads/pics/panzer2.JPGhttp://www.vwclub-rheinneckar.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/20130206-205753.jpg

Think "dune buggy" meets "Ford Econoline Van" for rapid deployment in support of Light Infantry forces. What is interesting is that the HMMWV already meets the requirements in M998 Troop Carrier configuration with one man to spare. Driver, VC, 8 guys in the back is ten men. Simply adding a gun ring for an M2 or M240 and a gun position between the Driver and VC that extends back into the cargo area. With the upgrades to the 6.5 turbo diesel engine it is a very good off road platform. And in case you are wondering, thin skinned HMMWVs are what Soldiers and Marines did most of their patrolling with in Iraq between 2003 and 2005 before the IED became a widespread terrorist TTP.

Fit inside a Chinook? CheckSlung under a Blackhawk? CheckCapable of transporting a 9 man squad? CheckThe only thing missing is a rollover cage.

The most likely candidate is the Supacat HMT licensed to Lockheed Martin as the 'Common Vehicle Next Generation' (CVNG) http://lockheedmartin.com/us/products/commonvehicle.htmlLM recently had the vehicle partake in the the US Army's 'Army Expeditionary Warrior Experiment' (AEWE) Spiral I; Spiral I technology quad charts can be viewed here: http://www.benning.army.mil/mcoe/cdid/aewe/content/pdf/SpiralTech.pdfThe LM CVNGs description matches several of the characteristics described in the FBO solicitation:11 pers capacityCH47 internal transportability310 mile operational range on internal fuel

That was a good chuckle. Now pull out your copy of "Operational Terms and Graphics" and point to the "medium machine gun" http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/fm101-5-1/f545-c5b.htm

This ain't WWII any more, although if you want to go by the historical definition you drug up, then a Mk19 would suffice as a "medium caliber weapon" as it launches 40mm projectiles, except if you refer back to your copy of "Operational Terms and Graphics" you'll see that the Mk19 is considered a "heavy."

Although it would be cool to put something like an M39 on a vehicle, then you would need a sighting system, and some sort of control mechanism (CROWS for example) and it would just get heavy.

Seriously, we don't even bother to put small cannons on Strykers, it's M2/Mk19 only until you get to 105's and TOWs. Why in the world would we put a 20mm Cannon on something designed to support a squad?